1 / 25

Simulation of Nonstructural Components

Simulation of Nonstructural Components. by Siavash Soroushian PhD Student University of Nevada, Reno. 1. E-Defense Workshop August 17-19, 2011, Japan. Research Team. University of Nevada, Reno:. Manos Maragakis , PI of NEES-GC Keri L. Ryan, PI of NEES TIPS

wolfe
Download Presentation

Simulation of Nonstructural Components

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Simulation of Nonstructural Components by SiavashSoroushian PhD Student University of Nevada, Reno 1 E-Defense Workshop August 17-19, 2011, Japan

  2. Research Team • University of Nevada, Reno: • Manos Maragakis, PI of NEES-GC • Keri L. Ryan, PI of NEES TIPS • SiavashSoroushian, PhD student • University of Connecticut: • Arash E. Zaghi, Assistant Professor • USG Building Systems: Lee Tedesco Dennis Alvarez NSFA Russ Fleming 2

  3. Why are Nonstructural Elements Important? Nonstructural damage accounts for 79% of the total earthquake damage • Nonstructural systems are subjected to the dynamic environment of the building • Seismic damage to nonstructural systems can be triggered at response intensities smaller than those required to produce structural damage 3

  4. Types of Nonstructural Systems Classification according to sensitive response parameter: Interstory drift-sensitive elements: masonry walls, partitions, doors, windows Acceleration-sensitive elements: suspended ceilings, boilers, ducts, tanks, light fixtures Drift and acceleration-sensitive elements: fire sprinklers system, pipes 4

  5. Objectives of System Experiments at E-Defense Site • Study configurations of Ceiling-Piping-Partition (CPP) systems in full-scale 5-story steel moment frame building • Comparative performance of CPP systems for isolated and fixed-base structural configurations. • Response of the nonstructural components, as part of a system, under large drifts/accelerations. • Interactions within and between the nonstructural components. • Interactions between the components and the structure. NEES - UNR Test-bed 5

  6. Location of CPP Nonstructural Systems NEES - UNR Test-bed • Ceilings, Partition Walls, and Sprinkler Piping (CPP) installed on 4th and 5th floors • Highest accelerations expected (2.0g) • Large drifts (near 1%) • Best available open space 6

  7. Objectives of Nonstructural Testing NEES - UNR Test-bed • Ceiling system • Effect of bracing on large areas of ceiling. • Performance of perimeter seismic clips. • Effect of additional mass such as lighting systems. • Dynamic amplification of ceiling relative to floor. 7

  8. Ceiling System Design Assumptions • USG Suspended Ceiling material were used for this experiment. • The ceiling grid system were designed based on International Building Code (IBC) category D,E,F. • Area of the ceiling is 970 ft2. • The 5th ceiling system has lateral bracing, there is no bracing at the 4th floor. • Some heavy tiles were placed to represent the additional weight of lighting systems. • 7/8” wall closure (angles) were used along with ACM7 Seismic Clip. • The plenum height is 3 ft.

  9. Ceiling System Perimeter Attachment • Unattached Perimeter: • - ¾” end grid/ wall clearance • - Screw at the middle of clip slot • - Partition attach screw through either wings of clip • Attached Perimeter: • - End grid tied to the partitions • - Screw at either top holes of the clip • - Partition attach screw through either wings of clip `` `` `` `` 9

  10. Ceiling System Hangers and Braces • Ceiling Hanger Wires: • - To transfer the ceiling weight to the deck above. • - Hilti X-CW hanger wires at 4’ on center were used. • - Hangers installed within 8” of perimeter partitions. • Ceiling Bracing: • - To transfer the seismic force of ceiling to the deck above • - Composed of : • 1. Compression post • 1.a Pipe section • 1.b Steel Stud • 2.Horizontal restraint within 2" of intersection and splayed 90° apart at 45° angles • 2.a Wire • 2.b Steel stud 10

  11. Objectives of Nonstructural Testing (Cont.) NEES - UNR Test-bed • Piping system • Behavior of arm over versus straight drops • Study the “No Gap” and 2 in. oversized ceiling hole • Comparative performance of flexhose and conventional drop pipes .

  12. Piping System Configuration (Overall) • Branch Line 1: • - 3 Drops • - 22’ Long • - 1’ Arm over • Same configuration on 4th and 5th floor • Pipe dimensions: • Riser: 3” pipe • Grooved fitting • Main Run: 2.5” pipe • Grooved fitting • Branch Line: 1” pipe • Threaded fitting • Branch Line 3: • - 2 Drops • - 12’ Long • - One flexhose Drop • Branch Line 2: • - 3 Drops • - 22’ Long • - Straight Drop NEES - UNR Test-bed 12

  13. Piping System Configuration (Brace & Hangers) 1. Pipe Hangers: To transfer the pipe weight to the above deck. 2. Pipe Solid Braces: To transfer the seismic force of piping system to the above deck: -Lateral Brace -Longitudinal Brace Pipe Wire Restrainers: To limit the translational movement of sprinkler heads NEES - UNR Test-bed 13

  14. Piping System Configuration (Sprinkler Head) • “No Gap” Configuration: • No gap exist between the ceiling panels and sprinkler heads • 2 in. Gap Configuration: • 2 in. oversized ring exist between the ceiling panels and sprinkler heads NEES - UNR Test-bed 14

  15. Objectives of Nonstructural Testing (Cont.) NEES - UNR Test-bed • Partition system • Effect of slip versus fixed track connection • Behavior of unbraced self-standing partial height partitions • Comparative performance of Institutional and commercial corner- and T-connection details. • Influence of openings (doors and windows) on response of partitions.

  16. Partition System Design Assumptions • All the partitions on the fifth floor are Slip Track connection and on the fourth floor Full Connection. • All the partitions except one on the fourth floor have commercial detail. • All the partitions except one on the fifth floor have institutional detail. • Thicker steel stud and track section were used • Stronger corner and T detail were used

  17. Partition Wall Configurations (Fifth floor) 17

  18. Partition Wall Configurations (Fourth floor) 18

  19. Partition Wall Corner and T Connection Detail Institutional Corner Connection Commercial Corner Connection Commercial T Connection Institutional T Connection 19

  20. Partition Wall Full Connection Detail Top Connection- Parallel to the Flutes Top Connection- Parallel to the Flutes Top Connection- Perpendicular to the Flutes Bottom Connection 20

  21. Partition Wall Slip Track Detail Top Connection Bottom Connection 21

  22. Instrumentation Plan Summary (Ceiling) 22

  23. Instrumentation Plan Summary (Piping) 23

  24. Instrumentation Plan Summary (Partitions) 24

  25. Thank You

More Related